Kheduram Thakur VsState Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the Respondents/State.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 848 of 2023 (Kheduram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby the petitioner had challenged the rejection of representation dated 26.11.2022 submitted for cancellation of his transfer and prayed for quashment of order dated 22.12.2022 as well as transfer order dated 30.09.2022.

Undisputed facts are that the petitioner by an order dated 30.9.2022 (Annexure P-2 in the writ petition) was posted as Principal at Government High School Karli, Dantewada and transferred to Government High School Jhapra, Block & District Sukma on administrative ground. Petitioner filed writ petition bearing WPS No.7515/2022 challenging his transfer on the ground that it is passed in violation of provisions of Clause 3.4 of Transfer Policy, 2022, which envisaged that transfer from scheduled area will not be made until reliever is posted and joins at that place. Another ground for challenge was that wife of petitioner is also government employee and as per policy of the State, if husband-wife are in government service, they should be posted at one place, as far as practicable. The said writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2022 permitting the petitioner to submit a representation before the Committee constituted under Transfer Policy, 2022 and in compliance thereof, petitioner submitted a representation on 28.11.2022 (Annexure P-6 in the writ petition). The Committee had rejected the representation of petitioner in a casual manner without considering grounds raised therein in an objective manner, particularly ground raised by petitioner that husband-wife should be posted at nearby place as far as possible and Clause 3.4 of Transfer Policy.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.02.2023 dismissed the writ petition of the appellant with the following observations:

“5. Petitioner is holding post of Principal, Government High School and by impugned transfer order he is transferred and posted in a school where post of Principal is vacant. Clause 3.4 of Transfer Policy, 2022 says that employees posted in scheduled area shall not be transferred from scheduled area unless reliever joins in their place. From the language of Clause 3.4 it appears that it is with a view that employees should not be transferred from scheduled area to non-scheduled area without reliever. Hence, submission of learned counsel for petitioner that before transferring petitioner from a scheduled area to another scheduled area, joining of reliever is necessary, is not acceptable because petitioner is transferred from one scheduled area to another.

So far as second submission of learned counsel for petitioner that husband-wife are to be posted at one place, is concerned, the State Government while framing Transfer Policy, 2022 has not made any provision therein with respect to posting of husband-wife, who are in government service, at the same place. However, it does not mean that it cannot consider request of employees in appropriate case. Petitioner's wife could have also submitted application for her transfer near the place of her husband. Petitioner has also not made such request. Hence, I do not find any force in this submission of learned counsel for petitioner and it is hereby repelled.

For the foregoing, the writ petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.

However, considering decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.K. Naushad Rahaman (supra), petitioner can submit fresh representation before the competent authority for posting his wife, who is also a government employee, at the same place or nearby place. If such a representation is submitted by petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.”

Taking overall view of the matter, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petition of the appellant and accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.